1 2026:CGHC:14338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2371 of 2024 1 - Panchbati Bai Wd/o Late Yuvraj Sahu Aged About 50 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Gram Dhandongri, Tahsil Laal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants). 2 - Khilawan Sahu S/o Late Yuvraj Sahu Aged About 32 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Gram Dhandongri, Tahsil Laal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Narottam Sahu S/o Late Yuvraj Sahu Aged About 28 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Gram Dhandongri, Tahsil Laal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Panchuram Sahu S/o Late Dasru Sahu Aged About 78 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Gram Dhandongri, Tahsil Laal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Kirtan Kumar Sahu S/o Mannuram Sahu Aged About 27 Years Caste Teli, R/o Gram Gathula Bori, Police Station- Chikhali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 2 - Aditya Dubey S/o Late Rajesh Dubey Block No. 19, Plot No. 456, Kachna Road, Housing Board Colony Khamhardih Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, New Bus Stand Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). ... Respondents AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.06 18:25:46 +0530 2 For Appellants : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha and Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocates For Res. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Res. No. 3 : Ms. Shuchi Ramteke, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 25.03.2026. 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 38 of 2023. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 11,55,100/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Yuvraj Sahu in an accident that took place on 07.11.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG07BQ/3523 driven by driver/respondent No.1 Owned by respondent No. 2 insured with the respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/ Yuvraj Sahu sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Yuvraj Sahu was aged about 50 years and was working as a vegetable Vendor and was earning Rs. 1200/- per day. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver, owner and Respondent No.3/Insurance company have field their written statement, in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 3 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 3 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Yuvraj Sahu was aged about 50 years and was a Vegetable Vendor and was earning Rs. 1200/- per day in total Rs. 36,000/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 10,000/-. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the date of accident, atleast minimum wages should have been taken for assessment of compensation and amount on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court. 7) Ms. Ramteke, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. supports the award and submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) Considering the evidence available on record; number of dependents; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time this Court is of the view that Rs. 12,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased. 10) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 12,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 10% 1200/- 3. Total Income 13,200/- 4. Total Yearly Income 13,200X12= 15,8,400/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/4) 158400/4= 39,600/- 6. Net Income 158400- 39600= 1,18,800/- 6. Multiplier of 11 applied to assess total loss of dependency 1,18,800X11= 13,06,800/- 7. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 8. Loss of estate 16,500/- Spousal Consortium 44,000/- 9. Parental Consortium 01,20,000/-(40,000/-each to A-2 4 to A-4) Total compensation 15,03,800/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 11,55,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,03,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 11,55,100/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 03,48,700/-. the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 02.12.2024 The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal and enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit is being made, one F.D. of Rs. 1.5 lacs shall be made in the name of appellant No. 1/Panchbati Bai and Rs. 50,000/- each shall be disbursed to appellant Nos. 2 to 4. and remaining amount shall be disbursed to the appellant No. 1. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami